BUDGET INCREASE FOR THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT OF THE ARTS

The Drudge Report ^ | 01-28-2004 | Matt Drudge

[Captain Peter Blood]

BUSH TO SEEK BIG BUDGET INCREASE FOR NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS... Laura Bush plans to announce the request -- for the largest increase in two decades -- on Thursday... Developing...

[iconoclast]

But I don't see anyone making a good case for why President Bush is proposing all this junky spending.

And you won't. For the simple reason that his policies are indefensible.

IMO, he is a decent, God-fearing, attractive POLITICIAN. Emminently likable. But, alas, probably LESS conservative than the despicable Bill Clinton.

[nopardons]

But Reagan DID it; what he " said " afterwards matters not, since he didn't even try to undo it. Which makes my argument far more sound and va,lid, than what you've attempted as refutation. :-)

[Don Joe]

Sorry, but you do not have the right to deny me either my opinion, or the right to express it.

In my opinion your logic is flawed. As a writer, and a programmer, I believe I understand a thing or two about logic.

You my disagree. That's your right. Silencing *me* is *not* among your rights.

[nopardons]

If, as you say, you think that Bill Clinton is more Conservative than President Bush is, then you don't know, nor understand the meaning of the word Conservative. You'd best rethink what you call yourself as well.

[iconoclast]

This is hardly the only issue.

Boy, you said it.

I had thought I would be voting for whatever third party candidate closest to a Constitutionalist that's on the ticket. (I have been voting for the Republican candidate for President for FORTY years).

But, at the moment I am thinking the best way to go is a vote for Kerry/Edwards. Kill two (bad) birds with one vote.

1)This would put the power in the DIM party in the Kennedy camp (thus putting a stake in the heart of Hitlery and her hopes).

And, 2) Try to assure that this is the last Bush that we'll ever have on a national ticket.

[iconoclast]

This is hardly the only issue.

Boy, you said it.

I had thought I would be voting for whatever third party candidate closest to a Constitutionalist that's on the ticket. (I have been voting for the Republican candidate for President for FORTY years).

But, at the moment I am thinking the best way to go is a vote for Kerry/Edwards. Kill two (bad) birds with one vote.

1)This would put the power in the DIM party in the Kennedy camp (thus putting a stake in the heart of Hitlery and her hopes).

And, 2) Try to assure that this is the last Bush that we'll ever have on a national ticket.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Our choice is Bush or a U.N. ass-kissing, soft-on-terror, tax-us-back-into-recession, pro-prebornhuman-killing, anti-traditional-marriage and pro-gay-marriage, pro-ACLU-judges-anti-common-sense-judicial-conservatives, pro-palestinians, pro-trial-lawyers-anti-tort-reform, hiking taxation and spending Democrat. This would leave us so culturally and economically devsatated anyway our lack of national security will be moot.

Cool. Let's do it. < /averagefreeper >

[iconoclast]

If, as you say, you think that Bill Clinton is more Conservative than President Bush is, then you don't know, nor understand the meaning of the word Conservative. You'd best rethink what you call yourself as well.

He's spending at twice the rate Clinton did and promoting unbelievable domestic policies and undecipherable foreign policies.

I know da*m well what I am, I'm a conservative. And I know well what you are .... a Republican (often referred to as the "Stupid" party).

I put up with their stupidity for the aforementioned forty years. I cannot abide insanity.

[Dan from Michigan]

I called Mike Rogers office. I hope he shuts this POS down cold in its tracks

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Sorry. I've been in the ring a while, and I'm a little tired of conversing with people who seem to enjoy typing stuff like "P*** Christ" and have disparaging names for Karl Rove, despite the fact that they have no idea how much he has to do with decisions they don't like.

I just don't need it.

Stick your finger in someone else's chest, k? TIA.

[My2Cents]

As a writer and programmer, the logic you understand is the logic of robotic response.

My main point is that there are some people frequenting FR whose goal it is to defeat Pres. Bush. From what I've read of Jim Robinson's convictions, he and this internet site support the re-election of Bush as the best way to defeat the leftists. Talk about logic, there's some right there. All I'm suggesting is that with this being the objective of this site, that the Moderators start scrutinizing the negative posts better, and weed out some who are here to disrupt, and nothing more. If you are not a disruptor, you would have nothing to fear. If you are a disruptor, you would have much to fear, and logically so.

[iconoclast]

My main point is that there are some people frequenting FR whose goal it is to defeat Pres. Bush.

Yes, and so what? I've been here a long time and hope to stay.

Many of us think of this as a conservative forum, not a GWB cheerleading section.

If you are a disruptor, you would have much to fear, and logically so.

Just WHAT does THAT mean and WHO the hell do you think YOU are?

If Jim agrees with your post and throws me off here, so be it ... but it will shock and disappoint me.

[nopardons]

No, you call yourself a RADICAL Conservative, on your personal page.

I am a Conservative,but yes, also a Republican.Since you denigrate Republicans, then that makes you just a fringer, who is threatening to leave the GOP behind, because for the past 40 years, most of which the GOP was out of power (!), didn't do exactly what you think they should have.

Clinton did far more SOCIALISTIC and TREASONOUS things, that President Bush has done or said, with his sometimes leftish leaning proposals. I know that you dismiss that out of hand, but go read the long list of this president's domestic accomplishments, that you're ignoring.

Forty years ago, the GOP held no Houses and was NOT in the White House. Do you remember 1964 at all ?

[iconoclast]

No, you call yourself a RADICAL Conservative, on your personal page.

Indeed I do, and in the same sense and spirit that the beloved Ronald Reagan said the Democrat party had left him.

I'm "radical" because I refuse to buy in on the neo-con big-government, imperialist "new" Republican party.

[iconoclast]

Do you remember 1964 at all ?

Indeed, I do. Goldwater and conservative principles and a hope for a Republican turnaround (in philosophy).

That you hold the year in such disdain surprises me not at all.

[nopardons]

He did NOT win! That's my point. You're complaining about what the GOP has done, for 40 years, when, for most of that time, they have been out of power.

You read things ( nowhere did I say anything with disdain ! ) that I did not post and IGNORE what I have.

[nopardons]

Funny............you sound just like a Dem, NOT at all like a Conservative and most assuredly NOT at all like Ronnie Reagan.

[JFC]

I think we are playing the middle of the road song and dance..... Your either with us..... or against us.....

You DECIDE 2004!

[nopardons]

It is the president's goal to get re-elected. It is IMPOSSIBLE for him to do this, with only the votes of the extreme right, just as it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Dem candidate, no matter WHO that may be, with only the extreme left of their party.

Some people see the glass as 1/2 full, some see it as 1/2 empty, and those here, who fulminate about how they've been " betrayed " and worse, see NO glass at all.

There are two major political parties. The next president WILL, as always, been the candidate from one of them. That's just how it is. NO Lesson it " taught " to anyone/any party, by staying home or voting for a fringe candidate, or writing in the name of someone who is NOT running.

[JFC]

I agree with what your saying. And I for one am with George W. Bush. I was Born REPUBLICAN! And I will die REPUBLICAN...

LIKE W... says... your either with us or against us.. and I am with W. FOUR MORE YEARS!!!